Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38323052›Full record

ReviewJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience2022

Why Students Cheat and How Understanding This Can Help Reduce the Frequency of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education: A Literature Review.

Paula J Miles, Martin Campbell, Graeme D Ruxton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. An Introduction to the Proceedings of the 2020 FUN Summer Virtual Meeting.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paula J MilesSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK.
Martin CampbellSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK.
Graeme D RuxtonSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9TH, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic integrity is fundamental to effective education and learning yet cheating continues to occur in diverse forms within the higher education sector. It is essential that students are educated about, and understand the importance of, good academic practice. Strict standards of academic integrity help to ensure that knowledge is acquired in an honest and ethical manner, creating fairness and equity for students, ultimately enriching the student experience at university and the wider society's trust in the value of university education. This literature review synthesizes the many varied reasons why students cheat, as presented in a large body of existing literature. We then turn our attention to what we can do as educators to help reduce the rates of academic misconduct. Factors influencing the propensity of students to cheat are diverse but relatively well understood. Whilst policing and applying appropriate punishments should be part of institutional responses to academic misconduct, it is clear that this is only part of the solution. We emphasize the need for a much broader range of proactive activities to be brought to bear. Many of these are educational in nature and should have benefits for students, staff and institutions beyond discouraging academic misconduct. Resource implication should not be a barrier to their implementation.

Indexed as

academic dishonestyacademic integrityacademic misconductcheatinggood academic practicehigher educationplagiarismuniversity education

Identifiers

PMID38323052
PMCPMC10653228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.